2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells agricultural machinery and industrial machinery, and the Defendant is a company that engages in wholesale and retail business of agricultural machinery and construction machinery with the trade name C.

B. On December 2016, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant (the date of the conclusion of the contract shall be stated retroactively as of November 25, 2016), under which the sum of KRW 160,000 (the contract amount of KRW 7,000,000) was KRW 160,000 for the total of KRW 210 for the model name D80, model name E-50, model name F80, and model name (the contract amount of KRW 7,000 for the contract amount of KRW 43,00,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 43,00,000 for the remainder on December 2, 2016, the remainder amount of KRW 50,000 for the remainder on December 22, 2016, and KRW 60,000 for the remainder payment of KRW 60,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”).

C. Since then, the Plaintiff could have interrupted the supply according to the quantity of the model that the Plaintiff intended to supply in the instant sales contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to supply ten more goods than the original supply quantity to the Defendant, while the 213 goods were to be the Defendant’s business place, and the remaining seven goods were to be sent back to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request.

On December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant’s place of business 213 (the model name D70, the model name E36, the model name F107, hereinafter “instant novel”) to the Defendant’s place of business. However, the seven places of business were not sent by the Defendant without contact.

The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 7,00,000,000 on November 25, 2016 under the instant sales contract, and KRW 43,000,00 on December 2, 2016, and KRW 50,000 on December 22, 2016, and KRW 13,50,000 on February 18, 2017, in total, KRW 113,50,500,00 on December 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the unpaid purchase price, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid purchase price of KRW 46,500,000 (=160,000,000 - 113,500,000), and there is an annual rate of 6% as prescribed by the Commercial Act from February 1, 2017 to September 27, 2017, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, from the following day to the day of full payment.